There has already been talk that the plans proposed for the EC campus could be so big that the changes would have to be voted on by the public, in other words potential bonding.
So what would that include?
Recently I have been intrigued by the fact that the latest data mining EC survey online has been asking people for personal information like voter registration status. It got me thinking that perhaps they want this data to use in a campaign if the changes go to voters for the campus, changes that could include significant changes to the campus in the form of a massive public/private partnership that could cost well over $25-50 million dollars. That could be a retail complex with a hotel attached that could sit on the land where the SF Stadium is now if demolished. But I have NO idea what it could be.
With a survey out there collecting voter data, that tells me they are gearing up for some kind of major campaign and major changes to the campus. Pure speculation at this point, but worth some thought.
I found this quote from Haugaard in the Argus Leader yesterday interesting;
Rep. Steven Haugaard, R-Sioux Falls, pointed out that the role of government is to “never exercise a vice upon the citizensâ€Â and questioned how state officials can stop the “steamroller†of legalized marijuana.
Not to get in an argument on whether legalized mary jane is less harmful then legalized video lottery (and probably raise a heckuva a lot more tax revenue). But if Haugaard is so concerned about ‘vices’ being thrown upon the citizens of South Dakota I’m assuming he will lead the charge to have the legislature to repeal video lottery in our state during the next session? I have often argued that VL is a revenue neutral, if not a revenue negative on our state with all the social costs associated with it in crime (robberies), bankruptcies, broken families and even suicide.
So Steven, will you do the right thing and repeal this vice on the citizens of South Dakota?
I noticed that the developer of the Cascade has been using city property in Falls Park West as staging ground for the development. I wonder if the developer is leasing the property while using it and if they will repair the cover when done at their expense?
I find it ironic that the citizen taxpayers held this land for over a decade, collecting NO taxes on it for the developer and now they are using more of the property. They also received a large TIF for the project. These apartments are not workforce housing, these are market rates. The studios go for $895 a month and single bedrooms go for $1,200 a month, hardly ‘affordable’ housing. So what really is the city getting in return for the TIF? Well like most TIFs in Sioux Falls, not a damn thing except higher property taxes for the rest of us especially with another opt-op looming for the county and the SFSD. It’s time for us to end the corporate welfare practice of TIFs.
I got a good chuckle last night when 6 of the 8 councilors voted to NOT allow a tax abatement (Starr & Stehly voted for the abatement), with councilor Neitzert saying basically he has no choice but to follow the law and deny abatement, but then later on in the meeting 7 of them vote (Starr voted NO to the change)Â to challenge state law on the pawn shop ordinance;
A Sioux Falls ordinance falls a little more in line with a new state law tonight. Earlier this year, Governor Kristi Noem signed a law that said local governments could not prohibit the sale or purchase of firearms. In Sioux Falls,  the ordinance required all pawn shops and gun dealers to cross check any merchandise with a serial number. The change approved by a 7 to 1 vote tonight replaces the word “gun dealer†with second hand dealer, which still allows for cross checking.
Not sure if the AG will challenge the city’s decision or not, but I find it a little hypocritical of Neitzert to say he must follow law, than votes for this. I’m all for tracking gun sales, but I would be curious how taking the word out ‘gun dealers’ but continuing to track gun sales is any different?
I suggested something similar with a city ordinance that says if a ‘weapon’ is stolen from your unlocked vehicle and used in a crime you could be fined. I felt saying ‘weapon’ instead of ‘gun’ skirted state law when it came to locally regulating guns.
I also think the council should implement a city ordinance that bans all ‘weapons’ from city buildings.
If we are going to base city ordinance on word games, let’s go all the way.
UPDATE II: Belfrage talked about the subject, listen HERE.
UPDATE: Councilor Brekke sent me this quote last night after the meetings;
“In my not so humble opinion there is nothing more important than the structure we operate under, that is the legacy we leave behind. All other issues will come and go. If the structure is flawed, the decisions made and outcomes achieved will be flawed as well. If the process lacks integrity and is not respected, the decisions made will lack integrity and respect as well. I cannot imagine anything more harmful to our City Government than losing respect for the decision making process.”
The excuses came out, but Cameraman Bruce and I tried to dispel them during public input during today’s informational meeting.
Councilor Kiley said that there was only ‘Speculation’ that these communications were going on. Both Bruce and I told them that we had text messaged at least 5 of the councilors and 3 have responded during meetings, so there was no ‘speculation’. I have also seen many people comment on my site and FB that they text councilors during the meetings.
Councilor Soehl felt that since there wasn’t a statue saying text communications during meetings were actually public input, he could not support it. Hey, McFly, that is whole purpose of the ordinance.
Neitzert didn’t say anything except laugh during my input. He did however make a snark about reading notes off his cell phone at the regular council meeting.
Erickson went ballistic about not knowing about this. First off, she did know about it, secondly, Brekke who is helping Stehly with the proposal told Erickson that this was just a proposal and discussion and they have put nothing on the agenda yet and were asking for input. Oh, and councilor Erickson admitted she does property management work during the council meetings and settles disputes between her kids. Funny, I thought Christine was married to her business partner and very capable father who could handle the ‘leaky sinks’ while she did the people’s work a couple of hours on Tuesday Nights. Maybe we should let Stehly give piano lessons during the meetings?
My only suggestion would be to only ban text messaging and emails, I don’t have a problem with internet access to look up laws, research, etc.
I have a feeling that if Stehly does get this on the agenda, it will go nowhere, because the bratty RS5 need to have their cell phones so they can be coached on votes during the meeting. The irony is if they don’t pass this simple ordinance, they have NO idea what will happen the next time they are caught texting at a meeting, because at some point they will be wishing they just went along with it.
l3wis 